Why isn't Sup Forums discussing the death of the Internet as we know it?
W3C approved DRM today through a SECRET VOTE and they also abandoned consensus. It was basically pushed through W3C by Internet giants (Google, Netflix, Facebook etc).
boingboing.net
Landuke commentary on the vote: youtube.com
RIP Internet.
Other urls found in this thread:
eff.org
w3.org
whatwg.org
hooktube.com
arstechnica.com
twitter.com
W3C is not very relevant anymore.
They pulled some wacko shit like this previously, that's why browser companies made WhatWG
>WhatWG
???
What
you're a moron. post less please
fuck off w3c, nobody likes you
tim berners-lee is a cheap sellout
So what was stopping websites from implementing DRM before so that this voting made it otherwise?
nothing, but now it's standardized.
this means that somebody will soon make an easy-to-use DRM library that will become very popular and everyone and their dog will pump out DRM shit, now that it has become "standard" and every major browser will support it or be left behind in compatibility tests.
this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the web will change again.
It's just like JavaScript then, I'll just block it whenever I can. There is literally no reason to freak out over this, W3C isn't an authority that dictates which modules I keep installed on my devices. For the same reason, I'll ditch my iPhone after I use it through my planned schedule.
But this is a good thing, this keep mobilefags too poor to buy a desktop off the internet. How could you be against this.
A cheap laptop costs less than most smartphones.
Unfortunately no SMS.
Google Voice would like a word with you. You even get a real phone number to call and text with.
>through a SECRET VOTE
Not so secret if you know about it the same day it was taken.
they don't release which voter voted for what
> through a SECRET VOTE
that's basically how corrupt companies and governments get what they want. They wait until the public cries about what they're gonna do, wait, wait some more, and then secret vote and they laugh.
The big deal is the EFF stepped down from W3C so now W3C is purely corporate. Ded.
The real solution is to kill the legislation that enables this stuff. Although this is the better of two evils -- plugins/players vs the new standard -- I admit, I stand with Cory.
Does this mean they could stop things like youtube-dl?
Of course, youtube-dl doesn't have any drm support and even the website apis tend to be unstable.
It kills everything m8. Everything.
Will they do DRM images?
yes, it could stop youtube-dl, but because it's free software someone will release a patch that will break the DRM, like always has been.
In reality, DRM it's just a thing made by corporate lawyers with no background in tech to make their dying industry clients happy.
The W3C is irrelevant now that Chrome is controlling the browser market. Whatever bullshit standard Google thinks up, will get implemented.
in general it's not dealing with APIs, and youtube-dl employs measures to fool various DRM efforts anyway, so it's not like this is anything special.
Can the brainlets of Sup Forums get a quick rundown of how this will affect our daily lives?
Does youtube-dl work for netflix?
There aren't any standardized DRM methods in youtube today but there can be standardized all-browser-supporting DRM tomorrow. That's what this means. Also shitty manually maintained scraping scripts are still kind of an API.
No.
>there can be standardized all-browser-supporting DRM tomorrow. That's what this means.
a script can spoof a genuine browser agent and capture the network traffic, turning that into a video file. anything standardized and documented ultimately can't prevent a script from exploiting it.
>Also shitty manually maintained scraping scripts are still kind of an API.
only in the least meaningful sense possible. when we talk about "API"s we're talking about (generally documented) endpoints intended for programmatic consumption. if i give a url to a youtube video and youtube-dl is capturing the video file that shows up when it requests the corresponding webpage, that's not exploiting an API. if you expand the definition to include that as use of an API, then basically everything on the internet is an API, which renders the term meaningless.
It's not about useragents and traffic. The video is cryptographically protected from being played. You cannot play DRM videos without either breaking the encryption or running their software blobs.
Yeah, I wouldn't call them APIs in the strictest sense either but it serves well enough.
How can the script spoof a black box drm?
I don't see WebP support anywhere outside of blink.
if it's part of the HTML standard then a way of decoding the content at the endpoint has to be provided. that means youtube-dl can implement the same and capture whatever it decodes. the worst case scenario is that it actually implements all of the components of a browser and captures the stream after it's decoded. it'd be incredibly inefficient, but similarly to recording the screen there would be little if anything they could do.
No, it's implementing a system to download proprietary blobs of crypto to play videos. It's DRM. What you could do is fuck with your graphics library to also capture video streams but that's not a good option for anything and especially bad for users.
They only joined the W3C to stop EME standardization.
youtube-dl has supported authentication for a while. it's in the manpage, go look it up.
as for "spoofing a black box drm", whatever standard they come up with will need to be decodable by open source projects like firefox and chromium. whatever works for them would work for youtube-dl. youtube-dl isn't designed to circumvent drm; it's designed to capture video that you already have permission to access - in other words, after the drm "checkpoint".
The man that will crack this probably will be shot dead, but it will not matter.
Those two statements are completely opposed to each other. It doesn't use a browser to download videos, which you would need to access the DRM blobs. Yes, youtube-dl could potentially add EME libs and access DRM'd videos but it would probably be illegal to download with it.
Then where is the netflix-dl script?
>whatever standard they come up with will need to be decodable by open source projects like firefox and chromium
No because they ship with closed source binary DRM.
they went in on 2013 as full member instead of just being a regular pitch-in. now there wont be no more of that, by the eff and plenty of other people.
corporation like google will decide the next web standards, and w3c enabled that.
goodbye and farewell
youtube-dl is already illegal to use in some countries
That is 10000% bullshit. Fuck off.
oh, and like as been the norm for the past years, sjwzilla just toke it up the ass quietly and while empowering they rainbow colored '''workers''' instead of helping...
dead
Name one
i'm saying it could if it had to.
It would not function in the way that youtube-dl currently functions. You would either download useless encrypted files or you would be breaking encryption to create video files. None of that would be usable.
Yeah sure w3c isn't relevant at all.. You fucking idiot. Only 183 members from this list voted:
w3.org
Seriously. Familiarize yourself with the member list.
W3C have voted against sharing who voted for what. No details. Just a final count. An organization that supposedly prides itself on open standards and transparency.. REFUSES TO SAY WHO VOTED FOR WHAT..
Do you understand what this means? There will now be things executing in your browser that you have absolutely no control over. An "open standard" that says there's data that you cannot copy.
108 votes for EME
57 votes against EME
20 votes abstained
We'll never know who was in favor of EME, but I think we all know who's on that goddamn list.
if you some of don't think it's a bad thing, please understand that you're not allowed to break any DRM according to the DMCA. which means that the de-facto copyright of DRM protected content on a website would never expire. and you would not be allowed to break the DRM for any reasons, even to run shit on an platform that doesn't support that doesn't support this modern web browser DRM, stream a video through external player etc. also, enjoy getting sued for reposting that one image or video from the other website.
Internet is just more interactive TV. Frontier days are over.
>implying people haven't been breaking drm and won't continue to break drm
Trying to successfully implement DRM is like trying to fight gravity. To this standard, I say "try it bitch"
yeah but it's messy, profits propped up by laws is not going to end well for someone.
it's not about a successful implementation against pirates, it's about DMCA
Remember when everyone on the W3C member list said ISPs would turn the web into TV? Well look what they just voted for in a closed room. It's time for D.A.D.
This was always going to happen. Google is now making powerplays across the entire spectrum of the internet for control. It's probably driven in part by the rapid uptake of adblocking software which has forced google to act to protect their monopoly.
current big corporate ZOG owned centralized dataminer www for selfie-normieshit cattle can go to hell.
decentralized blockhain powered DNS, IPFS hosted websites, TOR etc. related solutions are the future of web and the internet communication.
The elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring was highlighted by Lunduke when he interviewed the W3C: modifying DRM is a crime. Now that DRM is embedded in your browser, any attempt to get around it would then be considered modification, ergo you better lube up little buddy.
Time for freenet
Well, the web is dead. I guess it had a good run.
Let's make a new web, with hookjook, blackers, and free standards that anyone can implement. Who's with me?
Why leave quietly in the night? Here's the Samson option for the world wide web:
Well, this is it. Centralized internet is dead, time for fully peer to peer internet
Guys
maximum lel
damn, they work fast.
>Unsupported version of HTML5
How is this a thing. You either are using HTML5 or you're not.
I bet the companies that voted in favour of DRM were from the USA.
Welcome to corporatocracy, bitches, where the big money dictate how you can use your browser.
USA corporations are fucking cancer.
This is extremely troubling. The anti-circumvention bit in the DMCA could very well apply to free software just as it applies to locked down hardware. Meaning removing the DRM portions from an open source browser could be illegal.
Have you not read a single fucking thing in this entire thread?
They are not going to abandon DRM even if W3C voted no, then what?
No one really care about W3C now.
>no one really care about W3C
I think you should probably understand what W3C actually is before you talk out your ass.
>> Sup Forums.org.in
>EFF resigns
EFF was the effective warrant canary of the web. Web officially over. It was a fun ride.
OY VEY
>EFF used as a moral-outrage outlet to defend net neutrality
>Meanwhile all the organizations that benefit from net neutrality were conspiring to DRM the web anyway.
>EFF is played for a fool by all Silicon Valley
Never trust a jew
"HTML5" is a constantly evolving standard
The issue I'm getting here is that the US thinks that competition will mean that if there's money in offering better internet a company will offer it. However it doesn't take into account the lawsuit laden barrier to entry that's about to occur once anyone tried to go around this BS.
So when the stallman-ites try to build internet sequel unless they can keep people from connecting it to the commercial Internet the chances of it being lawyered into oblivion are very high.
>nobody "needs" internet but my head spins from this
That's fucking bullshit. Corporate stock in the internet was a mistake
Well great. Now what are we supposed to do?
Study the flaws of the thing, keep the studies in secret, let everyone get baited hook and sink to it, then crack the fucker.
This.
I'm not really trying to circumvent DRM though. I will simply not consume DRM content and I'll remove that malware from my browser, pretty simple if you ask me. Forking is an option too. What will change is that Netflix will throw a shitfit if I decide to visit their website one day, and I doubt that time will ever come.
my advice, as always, is to save everything
But nothing is stopping every website from implementing DRM.
Nothing also stops any website from injecting 5MB JS AIDS, that doesn't mean I allow it on any website other than Sup Forums.
War criminals not wanting to be associated with their doings is not a new thing.
While the majority of the world would like to see them hanged and their families tortured it makes sense to hide who betrayed their own kind.
DRM has never worked in the history of mankind. Why do serious corporations keep wasting money on it?
Yes, but besides me, you, and some other guy, nobody will bother nor even know about such measures. And many people already view DRM as a merit and a service, e.g. like with Steam and Netflix. Herein lies the problem, where influential entities are pushing for such anti-user, anti-privacy practices, and their user base comes along for the ride. That you can boycott and block DRM doesn't make it any less detrimental, because the majority is still affected. And that these standards can be pushed for the entire web does directly affect you as a user, just like any other anti-user/anti-consumer law or implementation.
I remember seeing a thread by an user who made a youtube-dl bot. Basically run it and download video in the background. I remember thinking it was pretty autistic, but now it might come in handy.
Probably because it eases data mining. Apparently, Netflix can read every open tab in your browser, and there's no way to block it or audit the DRM module. And in Firefox, this module is provided by Google, and has a convenient link to Google's privacy policy. You can only either disable it or enable it, with no option to enable on a per-site basis. So I'm guessing, when enabled, this DRM module is running and collecting who knows what data.
You can already download an entire channel with youtube-dl.
>Apparently, Netflix can read every open tab in your browser
wait what
This has always been the real purpose of DRM black boxes, user.
I read it when the Linux Netflix-DRM controversy was going on a while ago, so might not be entirely factual (it's entirely possible that this proprietary DRM blob does in fact sandbox itself). But you can test yourself by disabling the module: you'll be able to open multiple Netflix tabs (but not play video, of course). But if you enable the module, the DRM will start complaining about the tabs, and you'll only be able to have one tab open. So it's reading something form somewhere, and if you skim Netflix's privacy policy and the data you agree to have collected by using their service, it suddenly becomes suspicious.
I never really bought any games from Steam or registered to Netflix, even before learning about their anti-user stances and activities.
I view this issue from the same Linux/Windows perspective to be honest, I honestly don't care about how majority of people suffer. Let's take adblocking for example, I use uBlock on top a hosts file, I'd never let an ad touch any of my devices, ever. I don't recommend doing this to anybody in my social circle, if they are not bothered with ads, they could view those inane digital brochures so I'd freely browse through websites without a paywall.
If people are fine with the bullshit they are exposed to in their everyday lives, so be it. I'm not going to defend their rights anymore, I tried that in the past. People who can't think beyond "I have nothing to hide" is undeserving of living a better life than a cattle.
Now remember how happy everybody was when google waged war against flashplayer.
